Do you believe in the afterlife?

[SurveyMack10]

You have said multiple times that I believe in something(God)
YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING(GOD)

You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did.  This constitutes your making a false claim.  Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.

There being no quoted evidence to support 'Surveymack10's" false contention, it must be concluded that her assertion was thrown into the 'debate' in order to divert attention from her unfounded contention.  This may not be what she 'believes' she's done however, a belief without evidence is an empty opinion.

No need to speak ABOUT me rather than TO me in order to make yourself feel better about what you lack.

[drandall]

Are we so vain and smug as to say we know UNEQUIVOCALLY that there may be no afterlife? Some things are just not meant to be explained. However I KNOW what I have personally experienced and I am by NO means a nut case or crack pot 

[falcon9]

You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did.  This constitutes your making a false claim.  Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.

You have said many times that my beliefs are equivalent to that of believing in invisible unicorns.
Is this true? Yes or no.

No, it is false.  I did not state what you contend; I presented an analogy wherein a belief in invisible unicorns constitutes an unsupported claim.  Such an unsupported claim is equivalent to making a similarly unsupported religious claim.

If yes, that is saying I believe in something that is not real (unless invisible unicorns are real)
If no, you are lying because you HAVE said that.

Even your sophistry is poor; those aren't logical conclusions based upon the premise.

Once again, you fail to provide substantiating evidence of your assertion that I made the claim you contend.  Therefore, your assertion is false and you've intentionally lied.

[SurveyMack10]

Amazing that you feel yourself so superior to have claimed to know my financial status, my GPA, as well as my major.

No, I expressed doubts concerning the financial status of the typical college student and without documentation, GPA claims are dubious in light of a demonstrated lack of critical thinking skills, (at least here - who knows if you're shining them on at school).  As far as your major is concerned, the actual statement made was an educated guess that it wasn't psychology, (again, based upon your replies here so far).

Ah I must have missed this message earlier as I just saw it-

I am so glad that you feel the need to come on a forum and insult others.
You think you have these great debate tactics, but anyone can see that all you do is avoid answering any questions or proving anything you say by putting the burden on the other person as well as using technical terms to attack their statements and claim they are invalid when they are not.

Moreover, I do not need your verification of whether or not I am financially stable, a good student, capable of critical thinking, and especially not on what my major should or should not be. Especially as it is clear you do not contribute much to society as every single time I have found the time to post on this forum you have replied usually in a matter of minutes- which shows that you are sitting in front of your computer unless you are breaking FC's rules and accessing them from a phone. I am mature enough to know that I could be wrong and that I am not capable of knowing someone's life story from talking to them on a forum for a few days (you lack this maturity), but just by your constant hostile tone it is easy to see you lack many social skills that are needed to be a functioning part of our society. Also, your arrogance in thinking that you can tell everyone on this forum what to do, decide if they are right or wrong, and tell what is true or not true about their lives shows immense immaturity and that you lack any ability to hold a civil, adult conversation as you believelf superior to all who you speak to that do not agree with everything that you say. Whether or not you admit this idea of superiority you show it in your habit of talking down to others, so denying it will not be necessary as it will only further prove my point.

That being said, people will take your arguments much more seriously if you consider that not everyone believe the same way you do and spend less time with subtle insults and more time proving your point.

[SurveyMack10]

You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did.  This constitutes your making a false claim.  Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.

You have said many times that my beliefs are equivalent to that of believing in invisible unicorns.
Is this true? Yes or no.

No, it is false.  I did not state what you contend; I presented an analogy wherein a belief in invisible unicorns constitutes an unsupported claim.  Such an unsupported claim is equivalent to making a similarly unsupported religious claim.

If yes, that is saying I believe in something that is not real (unless invisible unicorns are real)
If no, you are lying because you HAVE said that.

Even your sophistry is poor; those aren't logical conclusions based upon the premise.

Once again, you fail to provide substantiating evidence of your assertion that I made the claim you contend.  Therefore, your assertion is false and you've intentionally lied.

Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.

[falcon9]

You have continued to fail show proof that I claimed "god was not real", as you claimed I did.  This constitutes your making a false claim.  Until you address this false claim you made, this aspect of the discussion remains stalled due to your evasion.

There being no quoted evidence to support 'Surveymack10's" false contention, it must be concluded that her assertion was thrown into the 'debate' in order to divert attention from her unfounded contention.  This may not be what she 'believes' she's done however, a belief without evidence is an empty opinion.

No need to speak ABOUT me rather than TO me in order to make yourself feel better about what you lack.

In this instance, the only thing I "lack" is your degree of irrationality; something which I'll not miss.

[falcon9]

I am so glad that you feel the need to come on a forum and insult others.

I experience no such "need".  Would you like your insults quoted in order sequence or, just a sampling to emphasize your hypocrisy?

You think you have these great debate tactics, but anyone can see that all you do is avoid answering any questions or proving anything you say by putting the burden on the other person as well as using technical terms to attack their statements and claim they are invalid when they are not.

The burden of proof rests with the one who makes the _initial_ claim, (that would be you).  Evidence in the form of your dodging providing any substantiation for your claim exists in the form of your own words in these threads.  These are not "technical terms", they constitute logical debate.  If illogical "debate" tactics are instead employed by religious zealots, that does not change the burden of proof.

I am mature enough to know that I could be wrong and that I am not capable of knowing someone's life story from talking to them on a forum for a few days (you lack this maturity)

Both of your contentions, (that you are "mature enough to know" that you could be wrong), and that I "lack this maturity" are demonstrably false.  These constitute mere empty insults, (ad hominem is the 'technical term' for such).

but just by your constant hostile tone it is easy to see you lack many social skills that are needed to be a functioning part of our society.]/quote]

The depths of your hypocrisy are ironic.

 

Also, your arrogance in thinking that you can tell everyone on this forum what to do, decide if they are right or wrong ...

Since I have not told anyone what to do, (although, in your case, I have had to make the same request that you support your false assertions many times), nor decided as yet whether anyone was "right or wrong", (beyond indicating faulty logic, outright irrationality or lack of critical thinking skills - not just on your part), there remain only a few conclusions to be drawn from your rant.  One, that you apparently believe that, by making false accusational counter-attacks, your failure to defend your false contentions will go unnoticed.  Two, that you can devise no substantial evidence to support your claims and must resort to diversionary tactics.  The third possibility is _not_ the one you'll no doubt fabricate.

[falcon9]

Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.

What do you think an analogy is?

[SurveyMack10]

Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.

What do you think an analogy is?

Did you or did you not equate my God with invisible unicorns?
You did.
Are you doing to deny it? I will quote it if need be.
So, unless you believe that invisible unicorns exist then you equated my God with something nonexistent, meaning you claimed my God to be nonexistent.

If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.

[falcon9]

Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.

What do you think an analogy is?

Did you or did you not equate my God with invisible unicorns?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

Are you doing to deny it? I will quote it if need be.

Go ahead and quote it.  That will show anyone will competent comprehension ability that the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.

No "proof" was provided.  Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.

[SurveyMack10]

Did you or did you not compare my belief in God to believing in invisible unicorns?
Yes or no.

What do you think an analogy is?

Did you or did you not equate my God with invisible unicorns?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

Are you doing to deny it? I will quote it if need be.

Go ahead and quote it.  That will show anyone will competent comprehension ability that the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.

No "proof" was provided.  Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.

Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?

[falcon9]

Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.

No "proof" was provided.  Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.
[/quote]

Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
[/quote]

Evidence in the form of your dodging providing any substantiation for your initial claim exists in the form of your own words in these threads.  These are not "technical terms", they constitute logical debate.  If illogical "debate" tactics of ignoring this and repeating answered questions are instead employed by religious zealots, that does not change the burden of proof.

[SurveyMack10]

Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

If you continue to say I did not show how you said God is not real you will only be proving that you are blatantly ignoring my proof.

No "proof" was provided.  Instead, you keep attempting to present fabrications and inaccurate interpretations in lieu of conclusive evidence.

Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
[/quote]

Evidence in the form of your dodging providing any substantiation for your initial claim exists in the form of your own words in these threads.  These are not "technical terms", they constitute logical debate.  If illogical "debate" tactics of ignoring this and repeating answered questions are instead employed by religious zealots, that does not change the burden of proof.

[/quote]

Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?

[falcon9]

Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.


Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?[/quote]


Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

[SurveyMack10]

Did you or did you not compare my belief ... ?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.


Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?
Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns?

Once again, the analogy was comparing _belief_ itself, (NOT in _what_ was being believed in), by substituting the _what_ in order to emphasize that the "belief" itself was irrational.  Any false conclusions _you_ fabricate are not ones I'm obligated to refute.

[/quote]


So, since "the belief itself" is God, then you compared "the belief itself" (God) to invisible unicorns.

This means that the answer to the question:

Did you or did you not compare my God to invisible unicorns is Yes, you did.